LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for PCCTG1 Archives


PCCTG1 Archives

PCCTG1 Archives


PCCTG1@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

PCCTG1 Home

PCCTG1 Home

PCCTG1  October 2003

PCCTG1 October 2003

Subject:

Re: draft of first part

From:

Hugh Taylor <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 16 Oct 2003 09:59:51 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (38 lines)

A quick note on Adam's comments (which he seems to have stayed up very late
to write, unless I've got my timezones wrong). We don't use LCC, and I know
nothing of the classification proposal process, but I've had a quick look
at the stats and there are only two institutions who managed 10 or more
class proposals (new and changed) last year. Just Adam and Stanford.

On the one hand, the class activity is relatively limited; on the other, if
we wish to retain those who are putting time and effort into it, and maybe
even encourage others to do more, then improving the processes is
important. The significant thing I, as a non-participant, picked up from
Adam's message is that the current process isn't exactly designed to
attract proposals. In the context of the report, I'd be happy to go along
with the last sentence of Adam's section on class proposals.

I'd also be happy for class work to "count" towards membership activity.
It's no less important for a large body of people than LCSH.

One other follow-up to Adam. Whilst we should look to promote contribution
via the utilities as the preferred option for *members*, I feel we should
leave as many of the other options open as LC is prepared to support,
providing the report makes clear that members' contributions via the
utilities are going to be processed by LC staff *before* the generality of
proposals, submitted by whatever method, coming in from non-members. That's
part of the trade-off in having a membership program. And Adam did a very
good job of articulating just why Cambridge prefers e-mail to the Web form
(and continues to use it in preference to the latter)!

Hugh
--
Hugh Taylor
Head, Collection Development and Description
Cambridge University Library
West Road, Cambridge CB3 9DR, England

email: [log in to unmask]   fax: +44 (0)1223 333160
phone: +44 (0)1223 333069 (with voicemail) or
phone: +44 (0)1223 333000 (ask for pager 036)

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
August 2019
July 2019
May 2019
April 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
October 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
December 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
June 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
July 2000

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager